§

Ex Parte Flynn et al

95001608 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2015)
Ex Parte Flynn et al

19 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,545 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 656 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  3. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 149 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  4. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of non-obviousness where court “narrowly focus[ed] on the four prior-art references” and ignored record evidence of “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” to explain motivation to combine or modify references

  5. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  6. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  7. Application of Ludtke

    441 F.2d 660 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 13 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8513. May 6, 1971. John O. Tresansky, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Edward E. Kubasiewicz, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and SKELTON, Judge, Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1-7 of appellants'

  8. Application of Herbert

    461 F.2d 1390 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8664. June 29, 1972. Jacobs Jacobs, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant; Albert L. Jacobs, Jr., New York City, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner for Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office

  9. Application of Mullin

    481 F.2d 1333 (C.C.P.A. 1973)

    Patent Appeal No. 8905. August 16, 1973. Charles M. Hogan, Cincinnati, Ohio, Abraham Ogman, Peabody, Mass., attorneys of record, for appellants. Morris Fidelman, Fidelman, Wolffe, Leitner Hiney, Washington, D.C., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior

  10. Application of Gardiner

    171 F.2d 313 (C.C.P.A. 1948)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5492. December 7, 1948. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 527,224. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Duncan B. Gardiner for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming that of the primary examiner rejecting claims 15 to 19, inclusive, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Ralph L. Tweedale, of Detroit, Mich. (N. Douglas Parker, Jr., of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington,

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,350 times   1045 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,990 times   998 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 403 times   189 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  15. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  16. Section 41.79 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.79   Cited 5 times

    (a) Parties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: (1) The original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a) , (2) The original § 41.77(b) decision under the provisions of § 41.77(b)(2) , (3) The expiration of the time for the owner to take action under § 41.77(b)(2) , or (4) The new decision of the Board under § 41.77(f) . (b) (1) The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked

  17. Section 41.81 - Action following decision

    37 C.F.R. § 41.81   Cited 2 times

    The parties to an appeal to the Board may not appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under § 1.983 of this title until all parties' rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board. 37 C.F.R. §41.81

  18. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1